Brandon T. Black v. State of Indiana, 54 N.E.3d 414

Brandon T. Black was charged with class A felony battery and class A felony neglect of a dependent after the death and injuries of an 11-month-old; he initially proceeded pro se for a time, then had appointed counsel.
The State offered a plea to battery for an executed 35-year sentence (rejected by Black); Black ultimately pleaded guilty to neglect (State dismissed battery) at a change-of-plea hearing. The court informed him the class A range was 20–50 years and accepted the plea.
At sentencing the court heard forensic testimony describing severe injuries inconsistent with an accidental fall; Black received a 50-year sentence with 10 years suspended.
Black filed a post-conviction petition claiming his plea was involuntary and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him correctly about his aggregate maximum exposure (he believed he faced 100 years; actual maximum was 53 years).
At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing counsel testified he routinely discussed exposure and would have explained that the charges likely merged (making maximum ~50+ years), and denied telling Black he faced 100 years; Black testified he never received a clear, specific explanation and would not have pleaded had he known the true 53-year maximum.
The post-conviction court found the State’s case strong, discredited Black’s claims that counsel told him he faced 100 years, concluded any omission by counsel was not prejudicial, and denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the post-conviction court erred denying relief	Black: counsel failed to advise him of actual aggregate maximum exposure (53 yrs), rendering plea involuntary and counsel ineffective; he would have gone to trial if correctly informed	State: Black lacked credibility; counsel testified he would have dispelled any 100-year belief and likely advised charges would merge; no prejudice shown because conviction on neglect was practically certain	Affirmed: omission (if any) would be deficient performance, but Black failed to show prejudice or that a reasonable defendant would have gone to trial given strength of State’s case
Whether counsel has a duty to advise on comparative sentencing exposure	Black: counsel must calculate and advise maximum aggregate exposure even absent specific inquiry	State: no precedent imposed a duty to compute unasked-for aggregate maximum; counsel’s conduct was reasonable	Court: counsel does have an obligation to advise clients of possible penal consequences; but here failure (if any) was not shown to be prejudicial

Moore v. State, 678 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind. 1997) (voluntariness of plea assessed by judge’s admonitions; plea unlikely to be undone absent coercion or misleading)
Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (to show prejudice from incorrect advice about penal consequences, petitioner must present objective facts showing a reasonable probability a competent advice would have led to trial)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise regarding consequences of plea; omission can constitute ineffective assistance)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (standard for prejudice in ineffective-assistance claims related to guilty pleas)
Scott v. State, 986 N.E.2d 292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (counsel’s incorrect statement of aggregate maximum can constitute ineffective assistance when it materially affects plea decision)
Marshall v. State, 590 N.E.2d 627 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (multiple charges do not themselves constitute an illusory threat absent explicit advice that defendant would be sentenced on each)